Missing Middle Housing by Christine Nguyen

missing middle housing

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. II. III. IV.

introduction

missing middle overview, history

case studies

washington DC, san francisco

solutions

form-based zoning, precedents

INTRODUC

what is th

CTION

he missing middle?

MISSING MIDDLE

“Missing middle housing” refers to the housing typology that sits in between the spectrum of detached single-family homes and mid to highrise apartment buildings. These buildings are often duplexes, fourplexes, cottages, etc. and are lacking in many fast growing cities.

Image from Opticos Design

Image from The Daily Californian

OVERVIEW

“Missing Middle Housing is a range of house-scale buildings with multiple units—compatible in scale and form with detached single-family homes—located in a walkable neighborhood” Missing Middle Housing

This housing typology is “missing” as it was not often built since the 1940s, and given the rise of urban sprawl, is now needed. Spearheaded and coined by Daniel Parolek of Opticos Design in 2010, “missing middle housing” grew as a movement to find solutions in urban cities.

WHY DOES THIS MATTER? 12

Middle housing is one way to address affordable housing. By adding middle housing to the mix, it increases the types of housing options available to people that isn’t limited to single-family houses or apartments.

Image from MarketWatch

Housing across America has increased drastically where many people in cities cannot afford to purchase a home.

Accessibility has become an important factor in housing as newer generations prefer to live closer to amnenities. However, housing located in cities that are walkable have increased in price drastically.

Image from Opticos Design

Image from Teass \ Warren Architects

“Missing middle housing” addresses problems urban cities and their suburban counterparts have with zoning. By studying the middle housing typology, we can face issues at the urban scale and see problems with city growth and the zoning code. In order to address urbanization and create safe and accessible environments, we must look at race and segregation that is created by housing developments. Through analyzing the zoning codes, building codes, housing types, and accessibility, we can explore how these play a role in housing development and neighborhoods. Accessible housing is not limited to financial means but also location and demographics (race, occupation, etc.). The desire for middle housing also addresses accessibility in two-folds: financial and transit. By addressing middle housing, we are solving the issues with housing demand and the shifting demographics.

how do we in housing and in without pushing the city or crea

ntegrate middle ncrease density it to the edges of ating a suburb?

san francisco washington

“We need a greater mix of housing types to meet differing income and generational needs. This is where Missing Middle Housing can change the conversation.” Debra Bassert, National Association of Home Builders

In the context of current urban housing, this type of housing is not being built. The importance of this housing typology is that it brings a greater variety of housing types to meet different income and housing needs. Throughout history, we see the change in housing needs where the newer generation no longer has a high demand for single family detached homes, as the younger generations do not desire having large families. Due to the shift in household demographics, there is a mismatch between the current housing stock and housing needs. In Dan Parolek’s article for the Architect’s Newspaper, he notes that there is a change in demographics- “by 2035, one in five Americans will be over the age of 65, and households without children will make up 84 percent of change in households between 2015 and 2025” (Parolek, Architect’s Newspaper). Single family developments are no longer needed by a large percentage of the U.S. population where nearly 30% of all households are now single person. By creating middle housing, it also addresses affordability by giving people a housing option that is between a large single-family house and a condo.

zoning code

how can missing middle housing be infilled with the city’s existing zoning? case studies of areas with two story flats/duplexes built before 1940s

san francisco

isssue arises in certain zones that allow for duplexes only & an exception is required to create triplexes/fourplexes

historica

washington dc

housing typ

what housing solutions can from infiflling cities with housing and how does tha other growing areas

housing strategies to in additions and new constr

duplexes, triplexes, bungalow courts, carriage houses, multiplexes, garden apartments

departure from large cities cause a growing need for the “middle” housing typology where there is an increased demand in suburbs and non-metropolitan areas

urban development neighborhoods how does middle housing represent racial diversity? in what way does it dissolve socioeconomic differences?

transit

suburb

ally, single-family zoning has contributed to racial and economic segregation

pes

n emerge middle at affect s?

nclude ruction

accessibility focused on affordability and location: as more people are leaving major cities cities, how will suburbs become more than just overflow?

accessibility how does creating a more accessible housing typology impact the growth of a neighborhood without the effects of gentrification?

REAL ESTA

what is the

ATE NEEDS

e market demand?

90% of available housing in the U.S. is located in a conventional neighborhood of single-family homes, adding up to a 35 million unit housing shortage. Source: Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, “Missing Middle: Demand and Benefits,” Utah Land Use Institute conference, October 21, 2014. Missing Middle Housing, Opticos Design

“The present economic research finds that business wants talent, but talent wants place—so more businesses are relocating to places. When drilled further the research finds Missing Middle Housing is the fastest growing preference because it has the ‘place’ quality talent seeks. Hence development of Missing Middle is now recognized as a housing AND economic development strategy.” James Tischler, Michigan State Housing Development Authority

“A greater variety of household sizes and demographics require a greater variety of housing choices. Young, highly educated, technology-driven millennials desire mobile, walkable lifestyles. They are willing to exchange space for shorter commutes, mixed-use neighborhoods, and shared open spaces that foster community interaction. At the same time, baby boomers are working and living longer. They want to stay mobile and active in their later years, but they won’t drive forever and don’t want to be dependent on their family members to get around. They also want to find ways to stay in their community without having to care for a large home and yard. Multigenerational homes have increased by 17% since 1940, and that number continues to rise. The growing senior population, more families with multiple working parents, diverse family cultures, and an increased desire to live in intergenerational neighborhoods all contribute to the growing demand for multigenerational and even multi-family households. Affluent seniors seek to downsize from their large suburban homes to more convenient, easy-to-care-for townhouses, apartments, or condos, while others need quality, affordable housing that won’t break their limited budget. Many retirees would like to move close to, but not live with, their children and grandchildren. The growing demand for a walkable lifestyle has the potential to transform sprawling suburbs into walkable communities.” Missing Middle Housing, Opticos Design

An increasing number of Americans spend close to 30% of their income on housing while transportation costs can consume an additional 20% or more of household income. Source: What’s Next? Real Estate in the New Economy, Urban Land Institute, 2011. Missing Middle Housing, Opticos Design

Transportation and the proximity to amenities is an important factor to housing now where walkable cities are more desirable. Walk-ability is becoming one of the most important factors for choosing where to live. A neighborhood’s proximity to the city core can drive up housing costs and thus pushing people to the suburbs. Affordable housing is an issue across the country and there is an increase in population of people that spends ore than 30% of their income on housing. There is a desire for smaller homes that cost less to rent or purchase that are in urban neighborhoods that provide services and amenities in walking distance with public transportation.

CASE STUD

washington, dc

NEIGHBORHOODS population: 692,683 (2019)

Washington D.C. amongst many in the country is in need of “middle” housing. Due to the city’s small size, a majority that work in D.C. reside in the surrounding suburbs in Virginia and Maryland. As businesses are growing and more people moving to D.C., housing costs have risen and many areas are being redeveloped into luxury apartments. As the city grows, it is becoming more and more difficult to reside in the city where public transporation is necessary. Like many cities, Washington is in dire need of more affordable housing. D.C. would benefit from middle housing as it can help increase density in a city that has many zoning restrirctions.

ZONING

The main residential zones for Washington D.C. is the RF (Residential Flat) and R (Residential) zones. In mixed-use areas, buildings have a mix of residential and commercial buildings while mixed-use buildings are increasing in new developments. The issues with these residential zones in D.C. is that it is mainly at the edges of the city while downtown has almost no residential zones due to its proximity to the capital.

The biggest limitations for RF-1 zones is the 2 dwelling unit limitation and prohibition of ADUs. These are issues because in a lot size that is larger than a typical rowhouse, it would only permit a duplex when a triplex or multi-family building could take place instead.

(2) 4 story houses

(4) 2 stor

conventional zoning 2 dwelling unit limit per lot

form-based zoning designed based on lot size

Limitations of R-1 zones is that it only allows for single-family housing. The lot sizes in R-1 zones are typically larger and allows for only 40% of its lot to be occupied. This zoning would benefit from the allowance of accessory dwellings as lots in this zone are large with ample amounts of space to increase density.

Washington, D.C. square: 409, lot: 192 / RF-1 Zone 424 R St NW

EX. PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK

D 75 x2

EX. FIRE HYDRANT

The area of this lot is 3,000 sf and is typically larger than normal rowhouse lots. Since this lot is located in an RF-1 zone, it is limited to a duplex with side NW yard setbacks. Due to its zone, this lot is only able to host R STREET, two dwelling units despite its size. 74x8

74x5

74x8

EX. GRANITE CURB & BRICK GUTTER

75x2

75x1

74x8

EX. BRICK APRON

74x7

74x6

EX. 48" WATER± (X 14-2, 1890)

EX.

24" GA

EX. 48" WATER± (X 14-2, 1890)

S±

R ST NW 90' ROW 32' ROADWAY / 12' SIDEWALK

EX. GAS±

ER± SEW

(54.0, PER DC WATER)

x6 75

EX. SMH± (NOT VISIBLE, PER DC WATER RECORDS)

x6 75

EX. 4" GAS± (ABANDONED)

x1 76

EX. 4" GAS±

1.5" CORP. STOP

75x7

75x3

75x1

M " STOR

x4 75

x3 75

RIAN DESTALK EX. PE SW CROS

EX. 15

EX. 8'6" COMB. SEWER @ 0.2%± (PER DC WATER)

EX. 8" WATER± (TR-X30, 7-19-91)

(90'-WIDE)

225' TO NEXT SMH 75 (RIM: 74.3, INV.: 54.7, PER DC WATER)

W GV

100'-2" [100.16']

EX. 8" WATER± (DUCTILE IRON, 080020, 8/1/2010)

EX. 12" WATER± (DUCTILE IRON, TR-X30, 7-19-91)

515 M ST S SUITE 200 WASHINGT 202.683.62 e ma i l@ t e a

75 74x5 74x3

74x4

74x8

EX. SIGN "NO PARKING"

74x9 LP

2" OAK

2 3/4" [0.24']

3'-10" [3.84'] BAY PROJECTION

PROP. GAS±

10'-6" [10.49']

2 3/4" [0.24'] 3'-10" [3.84'] BAY PROJECTION WALK

x6 74

x8 74

' (2077SF) .0 1

76.6'

NEW

240'± TO NEXT SMH (INV.: 53.5, PER DC WATER)

NAT. GRADE

'] [59.75 59'-9" ILDING U EX. B AVE Y E S JER RT Y NE W OP E 1 6 4 6 E N T P R OU 020 AC WD C 20 A DJ N, D RI ZE TEFE SHINGTO WA | E PL S 18 V

EX. WOOD FENCE 20' REAR YARD

'] [10.00 10'-0"

NAT. GRADE

76.5'

6 NOV 2020

6 AUG 2020 DATE

EX. END OF SEWER MAIN± (PER DC WATER RECORDS) (67.8, PER 74x9

DC WATER)

N/F JONATHAN C STEINMAN LOT 166, SQUARE 509 1644 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW OLD CITY II INS. NO. 154531

N W

75x0

74x7

12'-1 3/4" [12.14']

x9 74

EX. CONC. WALK 75

CANOPY O/H

x8 74

x7 74

75x0

80' TO NEXT SMH (RIM: 75.0, INV.: 64.6) (PDS)

75x3 75x3

74x5

75x2

74x6

74x9 75

LANDSCAP CAMPION H (401) 280-8 keving@cam

75x3

75x2

74x8

74x7

75x7

74x8

L W/ . WAL E CONC K FENC EX. LIN CHAIN

EX. CONC. WALK

S/W

36" MAP.

W VE N EY A JERS NEW 160' ROW

75x3 75x2

K BRIC

, T IRON ± (CAS ) ATER 6" W 11-18-74 GAS± EX. 4"

76.0

'] [26.66 26'-8" YARD R REA

N/F 2 TEFERI ZEWODU LOT 165, SQUARE 509 1646 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW OLD CITY II

EX. GUY WIRES

EX. ELEC. VAULT

NK N LI CHAI EX. FENCE

MEP: KK ENGINE (443) 393-1 kkhalifa@k

WA SQ

' 20.0

74x8

74x7

7676 LAWN

EX. PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK

STRUCTUR FMC & ASS (301) 545-6 fadil.ma@f

'] [48.10 1/4" GTH 48'-1 LEN DING BUIL

32.31

75.0

5.12

EX. RAMP

CIVIL: CAS ENGIN (202) 393-7 david@cas-

L/S

6.06

ALL G ST 5) RKIN 712. 8' PA DCMR 9'x1 11C 76 (PER

A/C

23.02

L STAL 5) 712.

EX.

8' DCMR 9'x1 11C (PER

32.39

@ E R R) EWATE '] .S W 8.00 C MB D[1 '-CO0" R 18 LINE '6" E . 8 ± (PPERTY %O EX P 0.2 R

PERVIOUS PAVING 74.9 (417 SF)PARKING

76.1' (BHMP) NAT. GRADE

0' 18.0

) 7' (S

EY ) L EL L(1I0'C-WIDA PUB

) 45.1 6' (R 45.0

A/C

75.5

DC WATER EASEMENT AREA± (RECORDATION PENDING)

TERRACE

78 5

EX. 4" C.I. (INV.: 72.8) EX. CONC. PADS

74x5

LOT AREA: 3,041 SF LOT OCCUPANCY: 49.1% (1,499 SF)

(68.2, MIN.)

76 0

5.12

RD DE YA

74x5

A/C

75x2

WALK

PROP. 4" PVC @ 2.0% MIN.

5' SI

°40'20

75x0

) (R&S

76x0

EX. CONC. RAMP

' .0 17

76 0

LAWN

S 15

.67' " E 88 °47'00 S 15 74x7

0" E °40'2 &S) (R

LAWN (124 SF)

EX. INLET (TOP: 74.3)

A/C

5.13

76.0'

EX. 4" GAS±

EX. ELEC. VAULT

75x6

75x5

NAT. GRADE

L/S

S 15

LEY ICK AL EX. BR

75x2

EX. CONC. PAD 74x8

FF-3F PROJ.

L/S

EX. 4" GAS± (ABANDONED)

75x5

75 x1 x4

EX. SMH± (NOT VISIBLE, PER DC WATER RECORDS)

75 5

75x5

32.36

x7 75

75x2

32.38

EX. TRANSFORMER

75x2

5.13

WALK

EAST 100.17' (R) 100.16' (S)

32.14

(65.8, PER DC WATER)

EX. 12" COMB. 75 5 @ 0.7%± SEWER (VCP, 22-5)

C/O PER S-80.02 (TOP: 75.5±; INV.: 67.7 MIN.)

TW: 82.1

A/C

13'-0" [13.00']4'-1 1/2" [4.12']

5.01

WALK

5.01

PROP. 1.5" COMBINED WATER CONNECTION (TYPE K COPPER)

4'-11" [4.91']

75x3

EX.

PROP. 6" STORM SEWER @ 2.0% MIN. (SCH. 40 PVC)

(65.5±)

(66.2)

L/S

16'-6" [16.50']75 2

75x5

75x2

74x8

NAT. GRADE

EX. 8" WATER± (4291, 12-15-13, ABANDONED)

75 2

13'-0" [13.00']

76.0'

75x2

EX. SIGN "NO PARKING"

20'-11 1/2" [20.95']

EX. BRICK S/W

75x2

4"x12" WYE SEWER CONN PER S-80.01± EX. 12" COMB. SEWER @ 0.7%± (VCP, 75-355) (66.2)

EY JERS W NEW NUEID,E)N AVE(160'-W

75x1

6"x12" WYE SEWER CONN PER S-80.01±

75x1 75x4

75x4

3" MAP.

74x9

PROP. 4" SANITARY SEWER @ 2.0% MIN. (SCH. 40 PVC)

75x3

75x1

75x2 75x1 79'-2 1/2" [79.21'] GV

74x9

74x8

74x9

x4 75

74x9

75x0

74x9

7" MAP.

EX. SIGN "PARKING"

2" TREE

EX. 4" GAS±

INTERIOR LANDING:76.0

74x6

75x1

74x8

T NW

74x5

PROP. ELEC.±

EX. BRICK APRON

EX. GRANITE CURB & BRICK GUTTER

74x4

74x9

EX. RAMP

74x4 74x6

E S

T O T A L SI T E A R E A LO T O C CU PA N CY PER V I O U S A REA

3,041 SF 1,640 SF (53.9%) 748 SF (24.6%) 2

Design from Teass \ Warren Architects

If this lot was in a different zone or if zoning code could be amended easily, this 3,000sf lot could easily fit a triplex or multi-family unit. Due to the RF-1 zone limitations on dwelling units, the only option for this lot is to have a duplex.

DETAIL

DESIGN

I AM RESP THAT THE INCLUDED COMPLIA REGULA COLUM PREPARED THE D ARCHITECT T

DEV

G E NE R A L S HE E T NO T E S

STRUCT. DWGS.

1. 2.

CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO START OF WORK BY CONTACTING MISS UTILITY A MINIMUM OF 5 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENGAGE A CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYOR TO STAKEOUT PROPERTY LINES, OFFSETS, SETBACKS, FOUNDATION CORNERS, RETAINING WALL CONTROL POINTS, PROJECTIONS, ETC. TO ENSURE CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3. DC: CONTRACTOR SHALL ENGAGE A LICENSED, CERTIFIED PUBLIC LAND SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER TO PROVIDE A WALL CHECK VERIFICATION: 4.1. AN INDIVIDUAL FAMILIAR WITH THE CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE ON THE JOB SITE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 4.2. MASONRY CORNERS AND/OR FORMS FOR CONCRETE WALLS SHALL BE ON THE FOOTINGS AND IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE WALL EXAMINATION. BRICK AND BLOCK SHALL BE ON MORTAR. NAILS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR LOCATING WALLS. 4.3. ALL CORNERS TO BE EXAMINED SHALL BE EXPOSED AND FREE FROM BACKFILL AND DEBRIS. 4.4. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL SHALL BE MOVED AS NECESSARY SO THAT THE FIELD PARTY CAN PROPERLY CONDUCT THE WALL EXAMINATION. 4.5. NOTE: THE SURVEYOR WHO PERFORMS THE STAKEOUT WORK CANNOT PERFORM THE WALL EXAMINATION.

ETAILS

OR DWGS

XTERIOR DETAILS

A1.21

EXISTING STRUCTURE TO REMAIN PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION

ISSUE TITL

ISSUE DAT

PROPERTY LINE

PIC:

LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE

PL:

LOT OCCUPANCY

SHEET NOTES / LEGEND

PROJECT

WAMU 88.5

Bowser Calls For More Affordable Units In New Housing Developments January 6, 2020 ALLY SCHWEITZER

FROM

Ted Eytan/Flickr

In D.C., large residential developments have to include some affordable housing. Mayor Bowser wants to toughen those requirements for certain new projects.

As part of her goal to build 36,000 additional homes in D.C. by 2025, Mayor Muriel Bowser's administration wants to require some new development to include more affordable housing. Under current law, new residential development with 10 or more units must dedicate at least 8% of its square footage to below market-rate living spaces. That law — called Inclusionary Zoning, or IZ — has attracted criticism from some affordable housing advocates, who say it's insufficient for a city that's seen an influx of luxury apartments and displacement of low- to moderate-income residents. Montgomery County, by contrast, requires at least 12.5% affordable housing in new construction, though it applies to buildings with 20 or more units. The administration took a step toward stiffening its affordable housing rules on Friday when it asked the District's Zoning Commission to consider requiring more affordable units from developers seeking to build bigger than current zoning allows. In a memo sent to the commission, staffers with the Office of Planning recommended mandating those developments include between 10 and 20% affordable housing. The city's goal, says Office of Planning Director Andrew Trueblood, is to capture more affordable housing from larger private developments. The tougher rules would only apply to projects that request zoning map amendments, which are currently subject to

regular IZ requirements.

Mayor Bowser’s initative to create more housing in the District is a substantial move for the city as its growth is surpassing its housing. Building 36,000 homes in D.C. does not solve the housing issue outright as only 12,000 of those units will be affordable. While D.C. already has IZ (inclusionary zoning) requirements for builddings with 10 or more units, many developers will build 8 units to avoid the IZ requirement. This push for more housing echoes other state’s desire to relax zoning laws to allow more buildings in neighborhoods zoned for single-family housing.

CASE STUD

san francisco, ca

NEIGHBORHOODS population: 874,961 (2019)

When headlines mention “housing crisis” San Francisco is one of the first cities that comes to mind. In a city with a dense population and fast growth, housing prices have rose exponentially in the past decade. The average rental price in San Francisco for a one bedroom is over $2,000- much higher than most cities. Rent is too expensive in the city where many reside in neighboring cities such as Barkeley, Hayward, etc.

ZONING

San Francisco is a prime example of how housing prices in America has risen drastically where even if housing costs decrease, it is still more expensive than other cities with a median income of over $ 1 million USD. The biggest cause for San Francisco’s housing crisis is due to its restrictive zoning. Many areas in San Francisco limit high density construction such as Nob Hill and The Mission District where mid-rise buildings are the majority. The vast majority of residential areas in San Francisco is zoned for single-family and duplex housing. This causes housing prices to increase and a shortage of affordable housing. While a duplex falls into what is considered “middle housing” in terms of its density, in San Francisco, its prices make it far from the middle.

CITY

Berkeley denounces racist history of singlefamily zoning, begins 2-year process to change general plan Council unanimously approved a resolution that will work toward banning single-family zoning. By Supriya Yelimeli, Feb. 24, 2021, 4 p.m. “Itʼs certainly not going to happen overnight, and I donʼt think Iʼve indicated otherwise,” Councilmember Lori Droste said of the lengthy general plan change process, and concrete steps to remove exclusionary housing policies in the city. “But [the resolution] is symbolic in stating that we want to address systemic racism. We canʼt address racial and economic segregation unless we address zoning reform, thatʼs de�nitely true.”

Photo: Pete Rosos

The Berkeley City Council unanimously denounced the racist history of single-family zoning in the city on Tuesday night, beginning a two-year process to change the cityʼs general plan and introduce more multi-unit housing in every part of the city. As council members emphasized repeatedly during the late-night meeting — the approved Resolution to End Exclusionary Zoning in Berkeley is just a document of intent, meaning itʼs largely symbolic and doesnʼt immediately change any city zoning rules. Thatʼs a much longer, involved process that requires multiple hando�s between the Planning Commission and the City Council, and is slated to be completed by the end of 2022. Read our live-tweets from the City Council meeting on housing

When Droste originally introduced the resolution in early February, the symbolic document was paired with a plan to begin the zoning change process and build more quadplexes in Berkeley. Those two parts were separated before Tuesdayʼs vote and the zoning change (authored by Mayor Jesse Arreguín, Droste, Councilmembers Rashi Kesarwani and Terry Taplin) was sent to the land use, housing and economic development committee on Feb. 18.

The issue will return to that committee on Monday and the City Council will begin discussion later in March, Droste told Berkeleyside.

Berkeleyʼs racist zoning legacy doesnʼt mean its residents are racist, council members emphasize Arreguín, Droste, Councilmember Sophie Hahn, public speakers and others took pains throughout the night to stress that simply living in a single-family home doesnʼt

Berkeley City Council has recently denounced single-family zoning in the city- beginning a 2-year process to change the city’s general plan and introduce more multi-family housing. These zoning reforms do not ban single-family housing but allows for a greater mix of housing types and income levels. The implementation of bills such as the Berkeley bill allows for more diverse neighborhoods through creating more affordable housing. An important factor to zoning is its relation to segregation as historically its purpose was to segregate by race. By ending single-family zoning in wealthier neighborhoods, it can bring more racial diversity and allowing people of color access to these areas by creating more affordable housing. However, there is concern for single-family zoning in predominately black areas as well. There is concern that ending this zoning in predominately Black areas of the city could potentially further gentrification by allowing homes to be replaced with market-rate apartments.

moves to change zoning laws have already happened in Minneapolis and Oregon,

How will single-family zoning end in Berkeley?

A famous Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) redlining map of Berkeley and Oakland that shows where Black and Asian residents weren’t given loans to buy homes. The practices that allowed this type of redlining have mostly been done away with, resolution author Councilmember Lori Droste said, but single-family zoning is one vestige of several exclusionary housing practices of the past.

Due to the stateʼs Regional Housing Needs Allocation from Senate Bill 828, Berkeley is already required to build 9,000 more units in the next several years. Mayor Jesse Arreguín and others have said zoning changes are one of the only ways to accomplish this quantity, and that the choice to do away with singlefamily zoning was practically decided for them.

Councilmember co-authors Taplin, Kesarwani, Rigel Robinson and Ben Bartlett have drilled down that this is not their intent, and council members including Sophie Hahn have shared information on “missing middle housing,” and other options to increase access and a�ordability. The Council had requested a study on the missing middle concept last year, but funding dried up due to the pandemic and Droste instead introduced Tuesdayʼs resolution. Much of the conversation Tuesday focused on singlefamily zoning in wealthy Berkeley neighborhoods, but thereʼs also single-family zoning in South Berkeley areas like San Pablo Park. Some public commenters and Councilmember Kate Harrison said ending this zoning in predominantly Black areas of the city could potentially further gentri�cation by allowing homes to be replaced with market-rate apartments. Southwest Berkeley Councilmember Terry Taplin is currently a tenant in a single-family home where he takes care of his mother and pushed back strongly on this idea. He said single-family zoning does not stop gentri�cation, and doing nothing accomplishes even less.

but rather to “no longer ban multi-family

“I donʼt understand why we need people of Central Berkeley to decide how to enact housing justice in West Berkeley,” he told Berkeleyside. “[The co-authors] are actually people of color who are in direct communication with our community, and we donʼt need housing justice [sic] prescribed to us by people who are not part of our community.”

housing” in all parts of the city. It also says “zoning reform does not ban single-family homes but allows for a greater mix of home types and income levels in more Berkeley neighborhoods.”

“Weʼre really a few decades late on this,” he added. “Iʼm glad people have realized and woken up to the fact that our Black population is almost gone, but we canʼt separate that from the policies that got us here in the �rst place.”

The intent resolution passed on Tuesday doesnʼt have the language to remove R-1 (or single-family zoning),

This language is not explicit, but an end to single-family zoning could come to fruition in multiple ways. There could be subdivisions in existing single-family homes, new construction and, indeed, demolitions and reconstructions. While some public speakers and

community members have ampli�ed the possibility of demolitions and further displacement, the resolution clearly states that this is not a favored approach to increase a�ordable housing stock.

Councilmember Susan Wengraf, whose district is in high-�re risk areas of the Berkeley Hills, emphasized an interest in public safety when going down the path of potential upzoning, or creating taller or denser buildings and allowing more people to live in certain areas. The resolution includes multiple mentions of

public safety, climate change and �re risk in considerations over the next several years. Right before the unanimous vote, Bartlett capped o� the discussion saying the change wouldnʼt immediately lead to a boom in housing or solve all the problems of the past, but the resolution has immeasurable “existential” bene�ts. “We cannot ignore that from the onset,

zoningʼs sole purpose was to segregate by race, to the detriment of people of color. They even called it Race Zoning! And it succeeded!” he said.

“It is important to note: not only are we the birthplace of race zoning, but we are also the birthplace of the Fair Housing Act authored by Berkeleyʼs own Byron Rumford, which became the Federal Fair Housing Act— a seminal piece of legislation guaranteeing equal access to housing,” he added. “As such, we have a dual responsibility to address this long-standing and entrenched iniquity.”

Democracy Dies in Darkness

As cities rethink single-family zoning, traditional ideas of the American Dream are challenged By Haisten Willis • Photos by Jenn Ackerman June 27, 2019 at 6:30 a.m. EDT When Nicole Valentine and her husband left Washington for Minneapolis in 1997, they said they were thrilled about their adopted city. The couple were able to buy a single-family house in a nice neighborhood within the city limits, and sent all three of their children to Minneapolis public schools. “The American Dream has always been to own a home and raise your kids in a house with a yard,” said Valentine, a stay-at-home mom who lives in the Linden Hills neighborhood. Now, she said, she worries the character of her neighborhood will be ruined in a few years. In a dramatic move aimed at addressing the city’s lack of affordable housing, the Minneapolis City Council in December approved a plan, which, among other things, effectively eliminates single-family zoning. Under the plan, called Minneapolis 2040, duplexes or triplexes are now welcomed on lots previously allowing just one home, with no requirement to add additional parking. Valentine and many of her neighbors say it’s too much, too fast. “When I moved here, I loved that the city was so strict about setbacks and parking and saying no to developers,” she said. “Now, it seems that whatever developers want, the city finds a way for them to do it.” According to the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, the median home price in the Twin Cities is $258,900, out of range for many would-be buyers. The council approved the rezoning plan 12 to 1, fueling debate across the country, with some fiercely criticizing the measure. Meanwhile, some other landlocked expensive cities struggling to create housing for moderate-income residents are exploring whether to make a similar move. “We are never going to achieve generalized levels of affordable housing unless we take on single-family-home-only zoning,” said Laura Foote, executive director of San Francisco-based YIMBY Action, which advocates for increasing housing stock. “Upzoning is a necessary part of the puzzle.”

Across the country 56

Opposition against ending single-family zoning is rooted in the fear that developers will build large high-density housing and ending the “neighborhood” feel of an area. While there are several people that are a fan of zoning constraints, it proves to be an issue for diversity. Eliminating single-family zoning is necessary.

RESOLUTIO

zoning co a

ode modification + accessory dwelling

how do we integr typology within t density

rate a new housing the city to increase y and accessibility?

ZONING CO MODIFICAT

ODE TIONS form-based code

Form-Based Code /fôrm-bāsed kōd/

noun. A form-based code is a land development regulation that fosters predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code. A form-based code is a regulation, not a mere guideline, adopted into city, town, or county law. A form-based code offers a powerful alternative to conventional zoning regulation. Form-Based Codes Institute

ZONING

New construction of middle housing cannot be undertaken due to restrictive zoning codes and building regulations. In many cities, the residential zoning code only allows for single-family developments. Often code modification is required to build outside of what is allowed in the zoning area, and this is a long and drawn-out process that is not guaranteed. Many cities have recently amended single-family zoning such as Berkeley, CA but doesn’t outwardly discourage single-family zoning. Rather than preventing single-family housing, it only legalizes the construction of duplexes, etc.

Image from Teass \ Warren Architects

Form-based code focuses on the shape and scale of buildings rather than use requirements. This would allow for adequately scaled buildings rather than buildings that are limited by zoning use. Rather than building a large single or duplex building on a 3,000 sf lot in a RF-1 or typically single-family zoned area, form-based code would allow for building a duplexes, triplexes, etc.

(2) 4 story houses

(4) 2 story houses

conventional zoning 2 dwelling unit limit per lot

form-based zoning designed based on lot size

HOUSING TYPOLOGIE

accessory dwelling

Image from Opticos Design

HOUSING TYPES

New legislature regarding zoning is the most effective measure for introducing more middle housing, but in areas where that is not possible, the question remains: how do we increase units in an already developed area? For this, many zoning codes allow for renovations and additions where architects and developers can reuse existing exteriors and preserve non-conforming construction (yards, lot occupancy, FAR) and use (building type). This is sometimes easier than new construction where raze permits are required. Creating a new typology that fits in the context of lower density neighborhoods is one solution to take on.

Image from Teass \ Warren Architects

ACCESSORY DWELLING rooftop

Rooftop accessory dwelling units are one resolution to resolve existing housing conditions. Adding a rooftop dwelling unit to a building is a simple solution as it does not require any demolition and would be treated as a penthouse addition which is allowed in many zones. Rooftop units have the capability of pre-fabrication and can be easily attached onto an existing unit. The use of a rooftop accessory dwelling or penthouse can add density to a building and an additional living unit depending on the size. It is relevant to middle housing as it is a resolution for existing buildings in areas that do not allow for detached dwelling units. Columbia GSAPP Housing Lab’s “Code Changes and Building Proposals” housing in New York City and introduced a rooftop ADU as an alternative to typical backyard ADUs.

GSAPP Housing Lab CODE CHANGES AND BUILDING PROPOSALS

FUTURE-ORIENTED ZONING & CODES INTRODUCTION

New projects alone cannot fulfill the current needs of housing to be resilient, accessible, and healthy. It is important to also rework code to better meet the needs of the majority of New Yorkers who reside in New Law tenements and other existing building stock. 1987

GSAPP HOUSING LAB

1879 - 1901 Old Law Tenements 1987

1901

14 1901 - 1915 New Law Tenements 1987

1930

1961

1987

ORK

(W 1987

1987 1961

1961 1901

1901 1987

O R P IN

Minimum standards determined for access to light/air. Il ipis sitat inciaep erferro maio con pa dolorep tatectiorem nobisquis arum fugit voluptatiam Iberibus in cuptaturero diciendiam quis de sumquid quam quianie nimpost as alicimod magnamus

1916 Zoning Resolution

Urban-scale considerations for light / sky exposure plane on the street. Il ipis sitat inciaep erferro maio con pa dolorep tatectiorem nobisquis arum fugit voluptatiam Iberibus in cuptaturero diciendiam quis de sumquid quam quianie nimpost

1929 Multiple Dwelling Law

Superseded 1901 law, setting updated regulations for light/air, addressing overcrowding and impose safety regulations related to fire and sanitation. Il ipis sitat inciaep erferro maio con pa dolorep tatectiorem nobisquis arum fugit voluptatiam Iberibus

1987 1930

1930

DRAFT V1 76

)

SS E R G

1901

Initial regulations set for living standards. Il ipis sitat inciaep erferro maio con pa dolorep tatectiorem nobisquis arum fugit voluptatiam Iberibus in cuptaturero diciendiam 1930 quis de sumquid quam quianie nimpost as alicimod magnamus 1961

190

198

1987

1961

1938 NYC Building Code 1987

1901

1930

1987

1961 Zoning 1930 Resolution

1901

1961

19301968

1901

NYC Building Code

1961

1987

1901

1961

1987 Zoning Resolution

1930

(WO 1987

1987

1901

? 1961

2014 NYC Building Code

1930

Il ipis sitat inciaep erferro maio con pa dolorep tatectiorem nobisquis arum fugit voluptatiam Iberibus in cuptaturero diciendiam quis de sumquid quam quianie nimpost as alicimod magnamus

)

SS E R G

PR N I K

1987

Il ipis sitat inciaep erferro maio con pa dolorep tatectiorem nobisquis arum fugit voluptatiam Iberibus in cuptaturero diciendiam quis de sumquid quam quianie nimpost as alicimod magnamus

GSAPP HOUSING LAB

1987

Initial regulations set for living standards. Il ipis sitat inciaep erferro maio con pa dolorep tatectiorem nobisquis arum fugit voluptatiam Iberibus in cuptaturero diciendiam quis de1930 sumquid quam quianie nimpost as alicimod magnamus

Il ipis sitat inciaep erferro maio con pa dolorep tatectiorem nobisquis arum fugit voluptatiam Iberibus in cuptaturero diciendiam quis de sumquid quam quianie nimpost as alicimod magnamus

Future How can zoning and codes enable the adaptability of existing buildings to turn a generic housing typology into a catalyst for change?

1987

DRAFT V1 77

GSAPP HOUSING LAB

GSAPP Housing Lab CODE CHANGES AND BUILDING PROPOSALS

ROOFTOP ADUs

30 Image 3 | A detached outdoor additional dwelling unit in Ojai, California

Image 4 | A rooftop accessory dwelling unit in Barcelona.

Image 5 | A modular rooftop accessory dwelling unit in Barcelona.

DRAFT V1 78

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs) CAN SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE DENSITY AND AREN'T JUST FOR BACKYARDS

31 ROOFTOP ADUs

The archetypal ADU is a small, standalone housing unit located in the backyard of a single-family detached home. Traditionally, it’s been thought that ADUs are most common in middle-class neighborhoods where homeowners have the “policy capital” to navigate the requisite permitting. However, recent studies have shown that ADUs proliferate across diverse neighborhoods. For example, in Seattle, Washington, minority household concentration actually corelates with ADU construction. Municipalities have also pushed to diversify the tenant side of the ADU equation. In Los Angeles, an innovative program helps homeowners finance the construction of an ADU in return for a commitment to rent the unit to families holding Section 8 vouchers.

GSAPP HOUSING LAB

Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are supplementary housing units built on the lot of an existing dwelling. Such units can be located either within the dwelling itself (“internal ADUs”) or as new stand-alone construction (“external ADUs”). ADUs are most common in places where singlefamily detached homes constitute the majority of the housing stock and housing costs are high. West Coast cities are particular leaders: in 2017, over 2,000 ADUs were permitted in Los Angeles and in 2016, over 600 were permitted in Portland, Oregon.

Permitted ADUs are comparatively rare in East Coast cities where single-family housing is not the norm. However, in New York City, a new pilot program aims to legalize informal basement units, a type of internal ADU. The pilot program indicates that ADUs in New York are already here—but they tend to be unregulated housing adaptations in outer borough neighborhoods, rather than the type of backyard “granny flats” most commonly associated with the term.

DRAFT V1 79

GSAPP Housing Lab CODE CHANGES AND BUILDING PROPOSALS

PROPOSED INTERVENTION

GSAPP HOUSING LAB

1B BUILD OUT ROOF TO FULL EXTENT OF SIX FLOOR HEIGHT LIMIT.

ROOFTOP ADUs

1C TIE IN TO EXISTING STAIRCASE AT ROOF LEVEL FOR CIRCULATION. 1D BUILD IN COMMUNAL ROOFTOP AMENITY

DRAFT V1

1A ROOFTOP UNITS, MODULAR & PREFABRICATED WHERE POSSIBLE.

GSAPP HOUSING LAB

35 ROOFTOP ADUs

DRAFT V1

GSAPP HOUSING LAB

GSAPP Housing Lab CODE CHANGES AND BUILDING PROPOSALS

ROOFTOP ADUs

Image 6 | La Casa por el Tejado, rooftop ADU project in Barcelona. Modular rooftop unit being lifted into place by crane.

DRAFT V1 82

LA CASA POR EL TEJADO, BARCELONA:

MODULAR CONSTRUCTION HAS UNLOCKED FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY FOR ROOFTOP ADUs

In Barcelona, a development company, La Casa por el Tejado (LCT), has specialized in prefabricated rooftop extensions to older buildings in the Eixample district. Identifying approximately 1,800 buildings in the district that have not been built to their full height allowance, this amounts to roughly 800,000 m2 (over 8.6 million ft2) of potential buildable space. Seven rooftop extensions have been piloteda and each project includes four general phases:

2] Undertaking any necessary structural reinforcements and making energy, safety, and accessibility improvements to the existing building. At the least, this has included elevator extensions and common area renovations.

33 ROOFTOP ADUs

3] Build modular rooftop units at an off-site production factory. Flooring, plumbing and electrical components are all incorporated into the module(s) during the construction process. Furnishings, cabinetry and other fixtures are installed after the unit is mounted and secured on the rooftop.

GSAPP HOUSING LAB

1] Acquiring the "air rights" of an existing building that is structurally feasible for an addition.

4] Installation of the new modular rooftop unit by crane. The new unit is then sold by the development company.b

a b

Reference the study carried out of the seven pilot projects Financing model - need to contact LCT - who owns the base building? Only additional unit is owned by LCT?

DRAFT V1 83

The limitations of a rooftop unit are zoning setbacks that may limit the size and height. In zoning areas that have height limits, it can be difficult to find a building that can house a roof as many buildings are built at max allowable height. It also requires additional structural support on the roof which can be another additional construction cost.

Image from Teass \ Warren Architects

ACCESSORY DWELLING detached

Detached dwelling units are a common resolution for existing buildings. Detached ADUs are useful as it allows for designs that do not allow for penthouse units due to building height limits and FAR. Detached units are useful for adding density and like rooftop units, have the capability for pre-fabrication. It can be the preferred method for adding density to single-family homes and large lots as it leaves existing structures as is and can be beneficial for existing buildings that cannot carry the loads of an additional penthouse/rooftop ADU. It is a resolution that requires little structural design to what is already existing.

Bunch Design Highland Park ADU

Images from Bunch Design

Detached ADUs are growing in popularity for its ease of construction as it has little impact to the existing structure. The benefit of ADUs is allowing different housing options and allowing people to rent or even downsize their homes.

Depending on the zone, detached ADUs are sometimes not permitted. Lot occupancy and setback requirements can be a restriction for detached units. This type of ADU is more typical in areas with single-family homes, however, it can also be beneficial to rowhouses and other smaller density houses as it helps increase the amount of dwelling units on a lot.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Andrews, Jeff. “Oregon Zoning Law Effectively Bans Single-Family Zoning” Curbed, https://archive.curbed.com/2019/7/1/20677502/oregon-yimby-single-family-zoning-nimby-rentcontrol. Accessed 10 Apr. 2021. bunch design. “Highland Park ADU.” Accessed May 9, 2021. http://www.bunchdesign.net/highland-parkadu. Form-Based Codes Institute at Smart Growth America. “Form-Based Codes Defined.” Accessed April 2, 2021. https://formbasedcodes.org/definition/. “Housing Lab.” Columbia GSAPP, https://www.arch.columbia.edu/research/labs/15-housing-lab#. Accessed 31 Mar. 2021. “Code Changes and Building Proposal” Missing Middle Housing. “Missing Middle Housing: Diverse Choices for Walkable Neighborhood Living.” Accessed March 31, 2021. https://missingmiddlehousing.com/. Krishnan, Megha. “Berkeley City Council Members Propose Affordable ‘Missing Middle Housing.’” The Daily Californian, February 25, 2019. https://www.dailycal.org/2019/02/24/berkeley-city-council-memberspropose-affordable-missing-middle-housing/. NPR.org. “Bowser Calls For More Affordable Units In New Housing Developments.” Accessed May 9, 2021. https://www.npr.org/local/305/2020/01/06/793923281/bowser-calls-for-more-affordable-units-in-newhousing-developments. Parolek, Daniel G.. Missing Middle Housing : Thinking Big and Building Small to Respond to Today’s Housing Crisis, Island Press, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.proxy01. its.virginia.edu/lib/uva/detail.action?docID=6295887. Parolek, Dan. “Opinion: The Answer to America’s Housing Crisis Might Be Hiding in Plain Sight.” The Architect’s Newspaper, 31 Aug. 2020, https://www.archpaper.com/2020/08/op-ed-the-answer-toamericas-housing-crisis-might-be-hiding-in-plain-site/. “Paste in Place.” Accessed May 9, 2021. https://cargocollective.com/pasteinplace.

Teass \ Warren Architects. “The “Missing Middle” Com-Plex - Residential Infill Design Strategies”. DC AIA Symposium, 2020. Willis, Haisten. As Cities Rethink Single-Family Zoning, Traditional Ideas of the American Dream Are Challenged - The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/as-cities-rethink-singlefamily-zoning-traditional-ideas-of-the-american-dream-are-challenged/2019/06/25/8312a512-4ca3-11e993d0-64dbcf38ba41_story.html. Accessed 11 Apr. 2021. Yelimeli, Supriya. “Berkeley Votes for Historic Housing Change: An End to Single-Family Zoning.” Berkeleyside, 25 Mar. 2021, https://www.berkeleyside.com/2021/03/25/berkeley-single-family-zoning-citycouncil-general-plan-change.